History Teaching in Scotland

First, a short History lesson. This is essential because, even among Scots themselves, there is often a woeful ignorance about the education system within their own country. I blame the History teachers for this!

Scotland’s constitutional position places her on a different footing from other parts of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union which amalgamated the Parliaments of Scotland and England in 1707, guaranteed the continuing independence of Scotland’s legal system and Scotland’s religious institutions. (Thus, current proposals for a UK Supreme Court may be in breach of the Treaty!)

As a consequence of this, Scotland’s education system has been regarded in the same light. Prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, legislation enacted in the United Kingdom parliament required a separate Act of Parliament. For example, the 1944 Education Act which established secondary schooling for all children in England was paralleled by a separate 1944 Act (Scotland).

However, legislation initiated and passed by politicians has never been the primary influence in Scotland. Scotland is a small country with a deeply rooted educational tradition. For example, during the middle ages there were three universities: Glasgow , St Andrew’s and Aberdeen. To this tradition, the Reformation added an emphasis on the catechism and bible reading and the consequence, by the end of the 17th century was a national system of parish schools which ensured that every child had access to basic literacy. The system was served by graduates of the Universities mentioned above, plus Edinburgh University which was established after the reformation in

This was the theory of course. The reality was a lot more patchy. Nevertheless, the existence of the parochial school system and of the four universities ensured that Scotland’s education system was well established and jealously guarded by a substantial number of parochial teachers , the Church of Scotland and the universities when the state started to interfere in the later 19th century.

The consequence of this was that the system was often driven by the practical classroom experience of teachers. As the state moved in, in 1872 and after, many of these found themselves in positions of influence either in the school boards (up to 1918) or the local authorities (after 1918) which ran the system. For much the same reason and with a lot of clout behind it, Her / His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools was also a powerful player in the system. The Educational Institute of Scotland, founded in 1848, also had significant influence since, until a split took place in 1945, its membership comprised virtually every teacher in every school in the land.

Scotland’s education system therefore tended to operate as a consensus of the views of all the above. As with all consensus models, radical change tended to be frowned upon. Thus Scotland has not seen the extremes of educational flip flops which have operated in other parts of the UK. The post 1944 tri partite “consensus” was replaced with a comprehensive “consensus” in the 1960s.

The negative aspect of all this is the way in which religious division became entrenched in the system. The ruling consensus in the 19th century was founded on the world view of the Protestant majority. Thus, Roman Catholic immigrants from Ireland were viewed as socially and politically dangerous, sometimes even racially inferior and often denied access to the education system whether parochially funded (before 1872) or state funded (after 1872). [It is worth noting here that even as late as the 1930s, the Church of Scotland promoted a policy of forcible re-patriation of Irish immigrants.] Roman Catholic schools were therefore set up, funded by the Roman Catholic community and of course strongly linked with the Roman Catholic church and its re-established diocesan structure.

In 1918, Roman Catholic schools, which had been independent of the state system were transferred to the supervision of local authorities. Roman Catholic parents were given the right to educate their children at these state schools whose teachers would require to be approved by the RC church in terms of their religious and moral character. This settlement is still in place today.

And so to the point …

Teachers

Primary teachers are generalists. Some are graduates and some of these will be History graduates. The majority will be limited in their knowledge of the subject which of course will also have to compete with other areas of the curriculum. There is no “National Curriculum” in Scotland (see later) and so History and other subjects have not been squeezed by centrally dictated policies like numeracy and literacy hours etc. The flexibility of the primary classroom can often lead to superb History learning if not necessarily teaching.

Most secondary History teachers are graduates with a PGCE. Some may have studied a four year BEd course, an option now closed off. Stirling University runs a combined degree programme which includes an education programme and a teaching qualification at the end.

The Curriculum

In S1 / S2 (12 – 13 year olds)

There has been an attempt over the past 10 years to impose a degree of order to a chaotic situation via the “5 - 14 Programme”. This lays down broad areas of study which children should study during those years. However, ineffective communication between Primaries and Secondaries and other factors such as prioritising other issues such as “Higher Still” has meant that Primary schools and Secondary schools often do little to coordinate the teaching of the subject. It is still quite common for Primaries and Secondaries to teach the same topics albeit perhaps with a different emphasis.

In S1 & S2 most History departments follow the 5 – 14 recommendations . It is common to see an “Ancient Civilisation” topic followed by a Scotland in the Middle Ages topic ( or “How we gubbed the English in 1314 even if they thrash us today at every possible sport!). Modern topics often include “Jacobites” (More Anglophobia!) and WW2. (How the English needed our help to gub the Germans!)

One of the problems of teaching History in Scotland is our tendency to see everything in terms of our relationship with England.

In S3 / S4 (14 – 15 year olds)

“Standard Grade” courses were introduced in the mid 80s to provide “Assessment for all”. In practice this means a Tripartite division …

Foundation (Grades 5 – 6). For the least able

General (Grades 3- 4)

Credit (Grade 1 – 2 for the most able)

This means that pupils sit two papers in every subject at the end of S4. The most able will sit the Credit paper and the General. The lower half of the ability range will sit the General and Foundation papers.

If you want a more detailed look at S Grade, see here

…http://www.sqa.org.uk/files/nq/SG_History.pdf

In S5 / S6 (16 – 18 year olds)

The Higher

The senior secondary has long been dominated by the “Highers”. This Nationally assessed leaving certificate has been in place for over 100 years. HMI and the Scotch (sic) Education Department were instrumental in setting up a programme which was intended to provide national standards for school leavers and university entrants.

Scottish Highers are traditionally more broadly based than English “A” levels. Candidates typically sit 5 subjects in a single year.

The Higher History curriculum offers a range of choices from various Historical periods. The most common however is the Modern Period. Students study a broad survey of British social, political and economic History from 1850 – 1979. This is complemented by a study of a European context, the growth of Nationalism in Germany or Italy to 1939. Alternatively, it is possible to study a World Power such as USA or USSR

Those interested in the details should look here …http://www.sqa.org.uk/files/nq/HistoryH4th.pdf

“Higher Still”

In the past decade, new courses have been developed to supplement the Highers. These courses were intended to provide alternative pathways for the “new 5th” less academic senior student who have been returning to post compulsory education in ever greater numbers.

Another viewpoint on the “Higher Still” development can be found here..

Just to complicate matters, the Scottish Executive Education department has recently permitted schools to teach Intermediate Courses in S3 – 4 as a direct replacement for Standard Grade courses. There are certain advantages to this in terms of breadth of study, simpler assessment arrangements and, in some respects, better preparation for Higher in S5.

Advanced Higher

This course replaced the old Certificate of Sixth Year Studies. Like all “Higher Still” courses it is based on the concept of mastering key skills which are assessed by means of the dreaded “NABs”(National Assessment items). The most popular course is based on Weimar and Nazi Germany but other courses such as the American Civil War are starting to edge in there.

The Future

I’d like to say that History teaching in Scotland is in rude health. In some respects, I can. The subject has benefited from the changed political environment and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. There is now a much greater interest in Scottish history. Likewise the media attention (“History is the new sex / sport / reality TV etc”) has increased interest among the population generally. A lot of good resources have appeared in all sorts of formats.

The “McCrone” salaries and conditions settlement has helped recruitment in secondary. The one year guaranteed probationers’ training scheme for post graduates (after they finish their teacher training), has ensured that all budding History teachers get at least a year in school to learn their trade.

There’s a down side however. Some local authorities are flattening management structures in secondary schools. This means that Principal Teacher of History, the key post in terms of protecting and developing the subject will disappear in favour of faculty Heads. This can only be bad, very bad, for the subject.

In addition, some schools have used the greater curriculum flexibility they are now allowed to drop the subject altogether in S1 / 2. Two schools in the west of Scotland have dropped History altogether in S1 / S2. This has of course, caused a furous debate in the educational press.

Are there many jobs for teachers of history in Scotland? I ask because years ago whilst I trained in Newcastle for my PGCE I had a girlfriend (now wife) who lived in Paisley and originally planned to go to work in Scotland. However I was warned I'd NEVER get a job in Scotland by a senior careers advisor because of my degree, pgce and the fact I'm English (albeit the Scots like to claim us geordies as their own, owing to numerous border changes through time). Is that still true? What do you think of a career in England? Would you swap if only based on hard headed educational thinking?

Why aye bonny lad! (I can say that without accusations of taking the p*** - I was born on Tyneside and brought up in Whitley Bay and Falshaw Street, Washington, Co Durham before moving up here as a lad.)

The biggest impediment to any teacher wanting to teach up here is GTCS recognition. If you have non Scottish qualifications these can be acceptable to the GTCS but they may also require further study to be undertaken. Check out WWW.GTCS.org.uk

There are plenty of jobs up here for the usual subjects (Maths, English etc). History less so although supply is possible.

Mind you, within a few years they'll be looking for asny teacher who has a pulse. 30% of the work force is likely to retire within 10 years.

What do you think of a career in England? Would you swap if only based on hard headed educational thinking?

Sorry. Missed that bit.

I can't speak with any authority except perhaps from what I've gleaned here. The National Curriculum seems to have done a lot for resources south of the border and there seems to be a real push to look at how to teach more effectively rather than curriculum / exam system reform which has obsessed us up here in recent years.

On the down side, it seems as if target setting, exams, league tables etc have becomme far more dominant down there than up here. (Mind you, we're catching up fast!) I also like working in a system which has a certainuniformity and maybe even a shared value system. (Hence the historical preface to my starter above.) Over 90% of Scottish pupils attend their local secondary school which offers a balanced curriculum. Over 50% go on to college / university. There are a handful of specialist schools for talented musicians, dancers etc but they are usually tacked on to local comprehensive schools. Things in England seem much more fragmented.

I often wonder what would have become of me if I had remained in Washington. Would I have made the Grammar after 11+? As it is, I went to a local secondary school which took every kid from the community. I had fantastic teachers (mostly!) and went to the same university and got the same degree as the current Chancellor. I somehow doubt that all that would have happened if I had remained a working class kid in Falshaw Street, Washington.

Most Scottish schools teach a “Wars of Independence” topic and part of this would be Scotland’s relationship with France in the Middle Ages in the form of the “Auld Alliance” and perhaps the French origins of many Scots families such as the Bruce, the Balliol etc.

The Standard Grade course (S3 – 4) contains a British and Scottish unit. Part of this is concerned with de-population and migration in the 19th and 20th centuries. In addition, there is an Intermediate course entitled “Immigrants and Exiles” which specifically deals with this issue in more detail plus immigration of Irish and other groups.

The Intermediate course on “Mary Queen of Scots and the Protestant reformation” has the potential for dealing with Scotland’s place in the contest between the emerging empires in the early modern period and of course the final breaking of the Auld Alliance with France when James VI became James I of England in 1603.

The changing political scene has encouraged an interest in Scotland’s well established links with Europe before 1603 / 1707 and the absorption in to a British Atlantic / World Empire, which of course the Scots were only too happy to help found and profit from for 200 years and more!

In my own school, we are adopting Intermediate courses in S3 and S4 and one of the key aims will be to give our pupils an awareness of Scotland’s place, both positive and negative, in Europe and the world.

Scots generally have a pretty positive historical self image (“Here’s Tae us wha’s like us” is the traditional toast with a dram of whisky in the hand.)… discovering Penicillin, TV, Radar etc. They often forget the slave trade, sectarian attitudes etc and there’s a balance to be struck there.

In "La création des identités nationales in Europe (XVIII-XX)" Anne-Marie Thiesse shows how each nation has rebuilt its own history, using sometimes imaginary or false medieval documents (impossible to prove when a fire has destroyed the supposedly original...)

Hi. I am a newbie here and I registered because this thread caught my eye whilst doing a web search for something.

First the bad news. I am not a history teacher. The only teaching I ever got paid for was in 1985 when I taught mathematics and computing at Glasgow College of Nautical Studies.

Next the good news is that with my political campaigning I am trying to make political history so if I succeed, you heard it here first!

To introduce myself here is my profile video which is a 10 minute film chapter from a longer Scottish human rights documentary which premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival in 2010 and was broadcast on BBC 2 Scotland in December 2010.

Scotland's constitutional position places her on a different footing from other parts of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union which amalgamated the Parliaments of Scotland and England in 1707, guaranteed the continuing independence of Scotland's legal system and Scotland's religious institutions. (Thus, current proposals for a UK Supreme Court may be in breach of the Treaty!)

As a republican I renounce the Scottish kingdom and any treaties it entered into. Not only would I tear up the treaty of union but the Scottish kingdom which signed up to it.

You will see in my website that I defend the concept of a Scottish state but want to establish a Scottish republican state and I even suggest adopting the Lion Rampant, the traditional flag or standard of the Scottish kingdom, as the flag of the Scottish republican state.

As a person concerned with human rights, I am most concerned to establish constitutional rights for the people, for the citizens. Freedoms such as the right to speak out, to publish, to protest, not to be arrested by the police for swearing or refusing to turn up when cited as a witness or for breaching absurd bail conditions - that kind of thing.

To me it matters little if the Scottish kingdom has its rights protected - the rights of a long established legal system to oppress the Scottish people. Instead I want the rights of the people to free themselves from a heavy-handed legal system to be defended. This is why I think we need a Scottish president to make the state accountable and respectful of the people's rights.

If you read my website you will see that I have huge political differences with the SNP under the leadership of Alex Salmond. Here is one video example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5aawSdrCMk

As a consequence of this, Scotland's education system has been regarded in the same light. Prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, legislation enacted in the United Kingdom parliament required a separate Act of Parliament. For example, the 1944 Education Act which established secondary schooling for all children in England was paralleled by a separate 1944 Act (Scotland).

However, legislation initiated and passed by politicians has never been the primary influence in Scotland. Scotland is a small country with a deeply rooted educational tradition. For example, during the middle ages there were three universities: Glasgow , St Andrew's and Aberdeen. To this tradition, the Reformation added an emphasis on the catechism and bible reading and the consequence, by the end of the 17th century was a national system of parish schools which ensured that every child had access to basic literacy. The system was served by graduates of the Universities mentioned above, plus Edinburgh University which was established after the reformation in

This was the theory of course. The reality was a lot more patchy. Nevertheless, the existence of the parochial school system and of the four universities ensured that Scotland's education system was well established and jealously guarded by a substantial number of parochial teachers , the Church of Scotland and the universities when the state started to interfere in the later 19th century.

The consequence of this was that the system was often driven by the practical classroom experience of teachers. As the state moved in, in 1872 and after, many of these found themselves in positions of influence either in the school boards (up to 1918) or the local authorities (after 1918) which ran the system. For much the same reason and with a lot of clout behind it, Her / His Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools was also a powerful player in the system. The Educational Institute of Scotland, founded in 1848, also had significant influence since, until a split took place in 1945, its membership comprised virtually every teacher in every school in the land.

Scotland's education system therefore tended to operate as a consensus of the views of all the above. As with all consensus models, radical change tended to be frowned upon. Thus Scotland has not seen the extremes of educational flip flops which have operated in other parts of the UK. The post 1944 tri partite "consensus" was replaced with a comprehensive "consensus" in the 1960s.

The negative aspect of all this is the way in which religious division became entrenched in the system. The ruling consensus in the 19th century was founded on the world view of the Protestant majority. Thus, Roman Catholic immigrants from Ireland were viewed as socially and politically dangerous, sometimes even racially inferior and often denied access to the education system whether parochially funded (before 1872) or state funded (after 1872). [It is worth noting here that even as late as the 1930s, the Church of Scotland promoted a policy of forcible re-patriation of Irish immigrants.] Roman Catholic schools were therefore set up, funded by the Roman Catholic community and of course strongly linked with the Roman Catholic church and its re-established diocesan structure.

In 1918, Roman Catholic schools, which had been independent of the state system were transferred to the supervision of local authorities. Roman Catholic parents were given the right to educate their children at these state schools whose teachers would require to be approved by the RC church in terms of their religious and moral character. This settlement is still in place today.

Any questions? Please post and I'll do my best.

I would argue that the Scottish educational system has been unable to educate the Scots properly about constitutional matters such the folly of kingdom and monarchy because the control of broadcasting in Scotland by the likes of the BBC has made it impossible for the teachers, never mind the pupils or students, to get their heads around the fact we need a republic and president to defend us from the courts and the police who otherwise rule us with all the rights of lumps of meat.

When the BBC pours out pro-royal propaganda every week - the royal wedding, William and Kate in Canada etc - any attempt to educate about simple backwardness and incompetence of monarchy would be laughed out of parliament, or the education ministry. In short, the Scots like the other Britons are brainwashed by TV, not educated as they should be.

Therefore the Scots as a nation are mostly beaten and enslaved by the state, take refuge in sporting events where we can cheer Scotland on semi-patriotically, and never can the bulk of Scots be educated about the fact that it is very wrong and damaging to us that we have little personal freedom and we really do need a republican revolution to deliver us freedom.

OK, well if my approach seems bland and consensual then I have failed in my political education task here.

I am very angry about the state of affairs in Scotland but I do not mean to offend people. I mean to educate and to lead politically. Please help me in that task.

Hi. I am a newbie here and I registered because this thread caught my eye whilst doing a web search for something.

First the bad news. I am not a history teacher. The only teaching I ever got paid for was in 1985 when I taught mathematics and computing at Glasgow College of Nautical Studies.

Next the good news is that with my political campaigning I am trying to make political history so if I succeed, you heard it here first!

To introduce myself here is my profile video which is a 10 minute film chapter from a longer Scottish human rights documentary which premiered at the Edinburgh International Film Festival in 2010 and was broadcast on BBC 2 Scotland in December 2010.

Scotland's constitutional position places her on a different footing from other parts of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union which amalgamated the Parliaments of Scotland and England in 1707, guaranteed the continuing independence of Scotland's legal system and Scotland's religious institutions. (Thus, current proposals for a UK Supreme Court may be in breach of the Treaty!)

As a republican I renounce the Scottish kingdom and any treaties it entered into. Not only would I tear up the treaty of union but the Scottish kingdom which signed up to it.

You will see in my website that I defend the concept of a Scottish state but want to establish a Scottish republican state and I even suggest adopting the Lion Rampant, the traditional flag or standard of the Scottish kingdom, as the flag of the Scottish republican state.

As a person concerned with human rights, I am most concerned to establish constitutional rights for the people, for the citizens. Freedoms such as the right to speak out, to publish, to protest, not to be arrested by the police for swearing or refusing to turn up when cited as a witness or for breaching absurd bail conditions - that kind of thing.

To me it matters little if the Scottish kingdom has its rights protected - the rights of a long established legal system to oppress the Scottish people. Instead I want the rights of the people to free themselves from a heavy-handed legal system to be defended. This is why I think we need a Scottish president to make the state accountable and respectful of the people's rights.

If you read my website you will see that I have huge political differences with the SNP under the leadership of Alex Salmond. Here is one video example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5aawSdrCMk

As a consequence of this, Scotland's education system has been regarded in the same light. Prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, legislation enacted in the United Kingdom parliament required a separate Act of Parliament. For example, the 1944 Education Act which established secondary schooling for all children in England was paralleled by a separate 1944 Act (Scotland).

However, legislation initiated and passed by politicians has never been the primary influence in Scotland. Scotland is a small country with a deeply rooted educational tradition. For example, during the middle ages there were three universities: Glasgow , St Andrew's and Aberdeen. To this tradition, the Reformation added an emphasis on the catechism and bible reading and the consequence, by the end of the 17th century was a national system of parish schools which ensured that every child had access to basic literacy. The system was served by graduates of the Universities mentioned above, plus Edinburgh University which was established after the reformation in

This was the theory of course. The reality was a lot more patchy. Nevertheless, the existence of the parochial school system and of the four universities ensured that Scotland's education system was well established and jealously guarded by a substantial number of parochial teachers , the Church of Scotland and the universities when the state started to interfere in the later 19th century.

The consequence of this was that the system was often driven by the practical classroom experience of teachers. As the state moved in, in 1872 and after, many of these found themselves in positions of influence either in the school boards (up to 1918) or the local authorities (after 1918) which ran the system. For much the same reason and with a lot of clout behind it, Her / His Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools was also a powerful player in the system. The Educational Institute of Scotland, founded in 1848, also had significant influence since, until a split took place in 1945, its membership comprised virtually every teacher in every school in the land.

Scotland's education system therefore tended to operate as a consensus of the views of all the above. As with all consensus models, radical change tended to be frowned upon. Thus Scotland has not seen the extremes of educational flip flops which have operated in other parts of the UK. The post 1944 tri partite "consensus" was replaced with a comprehensive "consensus" in the 1960s.

The negative aspect of all this is the way in which religious division became entrenched in the system. The ruling consensus in the 19th century was founded on the world view of the Protestant majority. Thus, Roman Catholic immigrants from Ireland were viewed as socially and politically dangerous, sometimes even racially inferior and often denied access to the education system whether parochially funded (before 1872) or state funded (after 1872). [It is worth noting here that even as late as the 1930s, the Church of Scotland promoted a policy of forcible re-patriation of Irish immigrants.] Roman Catholic schools were therefore set up, funded by the Roman Catholic community and of course strongly linked with the Roman Catholic church and its re-established diocesan structure.

In 1918, Roman Catholic schools, which had been independent of the state system were transferred to the supervision of local authorities. Roman Catholic parents were given the right to educate their children at these state schools whose teachers would require to be approved by the RC church in terms of their religious and moral character. This settlement is still in place today.

Any questions? Please post and I'll do my best.

I would argue that the Scottish educational system has been unable to educate the Scots properly about constitutional matters such the folly of kingdom and monarchy because the control of broadcasting in Scotland by the likes of the BBC has made it impossible for the teachers, never mind the pupils or students, to get their heads around the fact we need a republic and president to defend us from the courts and the police who otherwise rule us with all the rights of lumps of meat.

When the BBC pours out pro-royal propaganda every week - the royal wedding, William and Kate in Canada etc - any attempt to educate about simple backwardness and incompetence of monarchy would be laughed out of parliament, or the education ministry. In short, the Scots like the other Britons are brainwashed by TV, not educated as they should be.

Therefore the Scots as a nation are mostly beaten and enslaved by the state, take refuge in sporting events where we can cheer Scotland on semi-patriotically, and never can the bulk of Scots be educated about the fact that it is very wrong and damaging to us that we have little personal freedom and we really do need a republican revolution to deliver us freedom.

OK, well if my approach seems bland and consensual then I have failed in my political education task here.

I am very angry about the state of affairs in Scotland but I do not mean to offend people. I mean to educate and to lead politically. Please help me in that task.

The aforementioned poster is very well-known for his views. They do not represent those of the entire Scottish nation...

Anyway, back on topic, one of the current issues in Scotland is the introduction of the 'Curriculum for Excellence'. I only know the basics and would be grateful if someone other than Mr Dow could explain its impact on education in the country. In addition, Standard Grades are on the way out to be replaced by new National Level 4 and 5 qualifications. For most of the time over the past 20 years or so, unlike in England, there have not been major changes to the Scottish education system but I get the impression we are on the cusp of something quite different.

To you who call yourselves men of peace, I say: You are not safe unless you have men of action on your side.

1. Teachers have been encouraged to be more adventurous and take greater risks in their teaching. Unfortunately, HMIE still hammer any schools / teachers which do not come up to their ideal of what "good teaching" is. Schools are also still held to account for their exam results. Rightly so of course but there is a contradiction there which needs to be addressed.

2. A major element of CfE is a focus on AiFL. As we know, this has been around for years and is nothing new. Unfortunately, the politicians and the careerists want to portray CfE want to portray CfE as a quantum leap in education which will produce a world leading system etc etc etc yada yada yada.

3. There are proposals which will have huge implications for national qualifications:

It is proposed that the first three years of secondary should offer a "broad general education". No one really knows what that means! I'd have thought that what we have now does that already. However, some schools have interpreted that to mean that children should not begin national qualification courses until the end of S3. This would mean a single year only would be available for pupils to study the equivalent of the "old" Standard Grade courses and THAT would mean a reduction of time leading to a reduction in the number of courses. This is a matter off real concern to teachers, especially those teachers whose subjects are not considered core subjects. e.g. History!

The new exams have abandoned the "assessment for all" banner of Standard Grade. National exams will ONLY be available to the most able cohort of students. (Those who currently sit the Credit exam at Standard Grade.) All the rest will be internally assessed and moderated. There are real concerns about maintaining national standards as a consequence of this decision.

4. The old system was based on a programme of national testing in English and Maths. Originally, this was meant to be the Scottish version of "SATs". Thankfully, resistance from the unions killed that idea off. However, a system for effective moderation and CPD to achieve uniformity of standards in schools, across schools and across the country was never put in place. Unfortunately, CfE has continued that tradition by putting in place a web based National Assessment Resource which contains examples of (sometimes excellent) classroom practice but NO means of achieving uniformity of pupil assessment.

All of the above has become mixed up with the political situation up here. The SNP simply accepted CfE as a "good thing" although the programme was begun by Scottish Labour. Now that the programme has started to show weaknesses, political reputations are at stake. The SNPs astounding performance at the recent Scottish Parliament election may just allow them enough space to accept that changes need to be made without risking political advantage. We'll see.

“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out otheir dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”.(T.E. Lawrence)
<img src="http://www.cyberium....lawrence-1.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" /> Who said bikers can't be pretentious?

Can anyone explain me,please,who decides about which part of the Scottish curriculum is devoted to the Scottish history and what part to the British one? And how much autonomous are the individual teacher in choosing the topics? Thank you.